planning panels victoria hearing on casey planning scheme ... · 1980 becoming full-time in 1988....

Planning Panels Victoria

Hearing on Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C231

54-60 MANUKA ROAD, BERWICK

PREPARED FOR JINGUANG PAN

INSTRUCTED BY INTERISE LEGAL

SITE INSPECTIONS: 5 SEPTEMBER & 22 NOVEMBER 2017

Expert Witness Report

PREPARED BY

John Patrick John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd January 2018

54-60 Manuka Road, Berwick Evidence to Panel Hearing for Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C231

JOHN PATRICK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PTY LTD | OFFICE REF: 17-0751 PAGE 1

1 NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE EXPERT

1.1 John William Patrick 324 Victoria Street Richmond Victoria 3121

2 QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE

2.1 M.Sc. Ecology (University of Durham).

2.2 M.Sc. Landscape Ecology, Design and Management (Wye College, University of London).

2.3 Associate Member of the Australian Institute of Landscape Architects.

2.4 John Patrick has worked in the discipline of Landscape Design since 1976. He established his practice in Australia in 1980 becoming full-time in 1988. From 1980-1988 he was Senior Lecturer in Amenity Horticulture at VCAH-Burnley.

2.5 In his practice John Patrick has undertaken an extended range of landscape heritage studies and conservation projects, including:

studies of Old Parliament House and Government House, Canberra;

studies of Fitzroy, Flagstaff, Treasury, Alexandra and Carlton Gardens, Melbourne; and

heritage studies and conservation management plans for numerous sites including Government House,

Melbourne, The Domain, Eureka Stockade Parklands and Central Park, Caulfield.

2.6 His practice has engaged a wide variety of other Landscape Architectural projects, including:

provision of Landscape Architectural services to hospitals, schools, residential sub-divisions, private

residences and parks, etc; and

design services for the City of Sydney ‘Living Colour’ Committee including street design for the Olympic and

Paralympic Games 2000.

2.7 He is a past presenter of ABC’s Gardening Australia, a past Board Member of the Royal Botanic Gardens, Melbourne, the Garden State Advisory Committee and Parks Victoria Dandenong Gardens Advisory Board and has written or contributed to 11 books.

3 AREA OF EXPERTISE

3.1 John Patrick has experience in Landscape Architecture, Landscape Heritage, and Horticulture.

4 EXPERTISE TO PREPARE THIS REPORT

4.1 John Patrick is regularly involved with the preparation of landscape heritage assessments and conservation plans. He has provided expert evidence to Planning Panels Victoria on many occasions, including a number of hearings relating to questions of landscape heritage. John Patrick is also frequently called upon to provide expert evidence to the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s Planning Division.

5 SIGNIFICANT CONTRIBUTORS TO THIS REPORT

5.1 This report has been prepared with the assistance of Michael Cook, Landscape Architect, and Michael Rogers, Consulting Arborist, who are employed in the office of John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd.



5.2 Mr. Cook holds a Masters of Landscape Architecture and has consulted on a variety of matters relating to landscape heritage conservation. Mr. Rogers holds an Associate Diploma in Applied Science (Arboriculture) from the University of Melbourne, and before joining our office served for fifteen years as Coordination Arborist for the City of Yarra. I understand that Mr. Rogers will also be giving evidence at this hearing.

6 INSTRUCTIONS THAT DEFINE THE SCOPE OF THIS REPORT

6.1 This report has been prepared following verbal instruction from Interise Legal. I have no business or private relationship with the property owner, other than being instructed to prepare this statement.

7 THE FACTS, MATTERS AND ASSUMPTIONS ON WHICH THE REPORT PROCEEDS

7.1 This report is based upon two visits to the property at 54-60 Manuka Road, Berwick, during which I undertook a visual assessment of the landscape elements present there.

7.2 The report includes several statements which are based upon information related to me by Mr. John Chipperfield, the previous property owner, during a walkthrough of the site, and upon the facts presented in Mr. Chipperfield’s witness statement. In preparing this report, I have assumed that the recollections and facts reported by Mr. Chipperfield are accurate. Where information has been reported to me by Mr. Chipperfield, I have ascribed it to him in this report.

7.3 This report is also based on my knowledge of the work of the landscape architect John Stevens, upon my recollections of past visits to Stevens-designed gardens, and upon a review of the following published accounts of his career:

Andrew Saniga, “John Stevens AM, Landscape Consultant, 21 July 1920 – 22 December 2007.” Landscape Architecture Australia 120 (November 2018).

Andrew Saniga, Making Landscape Architecture in Australia. UNSW Press, 2012: pages 77-82.

8 DOCUMENTS VIEWED IN PREPARING THIS REPORT

8.1 In the preparation of this report I have reviewed the following documents:

Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C231. Context Pty Ltd. “Review of HO49 & HO50 Manuka Road Berwick.” 18 May 2017. Andrew Long & Associates. “54-60 and 62-70 Manuka Road, Berwick – The Minard Villa and Clover Cottage

(and Garden): Historical Cultural Heritage Assessment – Implications for Development.” 18 July 2016. Council Officer’s Report, “Amendment C231 to the Casey Planning Scheme – Manuka Road Berwick

Rezoning – Consideration of Submissions.” 5 September 2017.

9 IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO PREPARED THIS REPORT

9.1 John Patrick is the author of this report, assisted by Messrs. Cook and Rogers.



10 A SUMMARY OF THE OPINIONS OF THE EXPERT

54-60 Manuka Road, “Clover Cottage”

10.1 The subject site is a long rectangular lot of approximately 3 hectares located between Manuka Road to the west and Cardinia Creek to the east. Situated within the lot are the original cottage residence, which I understand to have been dated to the period 1890-1900, a large restaurant constructed in the 1980s, and a variety of outbuildings associated with several different periods of residency on the site.

10.2 Much of the site has been intensively landscaped. Although anchored by several large trees of reasonably advanced age, the bulk of this landscape is considerably younger. Many of the plantings appear to date to the 1980s and 1990s and are of a style and character associated with the redevelopment of the site as a restaurant and pleasure garden.

10.3 The site contains four major areas of garden plantings: the stone terrace garden in front of the restaurant; the main lawn with island and perimeter display beds; the former Camellia shelter, within which the current stone-edged planting beds appear to be a later addition; and a less intensively developed rear lawn with various maturing trees, leading to a series of paddock enclosures on the back slope towards the creek. My office has prepared an indicative plan of the property at 54-60 Manuka Road which locates these key sections of the landscape. This plan has been appended to this report as Appendix 1.

10.4 Most of the planting beds throughout the site are raised and developed with stone edging and walls of recent origin. Mr. John Chipperfield, the previous owner, has indicated that all of the formal elements present in the gardens were installed by him in the decades subsequent to his purchase of the property.

10.5 The plantings on the site include an assortment of Camellia plants. Some of these are located in the planting beds situated in the ruins of the former Camellia shelter, while the remainder are located in shaded display beds within the front lawn and terrace gardens. A few old and overgrown Camellia plants are located within the Camellia shelter ruins, while many of the plants located in the front gardens appear younger. Mr. Chipperfield has indicated that some of these plants were purchased by him, and that he also planted some plants out from their previous setting in pots and biscuit tins he inherited in purchasing the property

10.6 The property includes one intact boundary planting of Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) along the frontage adjacent to Manuka Road, and one partial boundary planting of Monterey Cypress inside the northern boundary. An additional southern boundary planting appears to be located on the adjacent property, outside the bounds of the proposed heritage overlay.

The Proposed Heritage Citation – Reasons for Significance

10.7 The proposed amendment includes a revision to the heritage overlay for 54-60 Manuka Road, Berwick based on a heritage citation prepared by Context Pty Ltd (Context). The Context citation provides the following reasons for the

significance of these features (paragraph numbers have been added as a reference):

(1) Historically, the timber residence c.1900 and the early mature specimens of exotic trees (now part of the c1955 garden), are significant as fabric which represents the late nineteenth century development of small self sufficient farms on the Suburban areas immediate to township settlements such as Berwick. Although the timber cottage itself is altered, and the trees from this period have been incorporated into a later design, the cottage's form and materials, and its location and setting clearly denote it as a Victorian farmhouse. Its location on a large (if reduced from the original 21 acres) lot, and placement, set well back from Manuka Road, on a rise above Cardinia Creek clearly distinguish it from other similar building types from the same period in the township of Berwick. (Criterion A)

(2) Of further historical significance is the remaining John Stevens' garden design, as a rare surviving example of this prominent landscape architect's early residential work, which survives with a high degree of integrity. There are no other known examples of a designed residential landscape from the mid twentieth century within the municipality. Other examples of designed landscapes are generally public, or much earlier Victorian designs (although few are associated with a proven designer), or have been substantially altered through subdivision



or simplification, such as 'Edrington', 'Hillsley', 'Eyre Court' and 'Tulliallan'. The only other comparable example from this period is the home gardener designed cactus collection and exotic garden at Hallam Park, which is a modest residential garden. (Criterion A, B and G)

(3) The garden is of aesthetic significance as a design which creates a sense of overall enclosure, with a series of enclosed spaces within, represented by intimate walks and spaces, garden rooms and large shrubberies which separate broad swathes of open lawn. The design, which incorporated existing mature trees, creates a sense of anticipation through its use of the shrubberies and serpentine lines to create contrasts between light and dark spaces, provide contrasts in texture and create filtered landscape views. (Criterion E)

(4) The mature exotic garden commissioned by Frederick Tuckfield and designed by John Stevens' is of historical (associative) significance for its direct and strong association with both Stevens as evidenced through:

. the integrity of Stevens' surviving garden design (including layout, materials, planting) specifically designed as a display garden for Tuckfields's substantial Camellia collection;

. the high percentage of Camellia species, varieties and forms which survive throughout the garden, many of which were bred, grown or developed by Frederick Tuckfield;

The direct association with both Stevens and Tuckfield is evident both in the physical fabric set out above, as well as through documentary and oral sources, including verbal recordings of John Stevens, local and state newspaper articles relating to the community and scientific use of the place and the Camellia collection and records of the plants developed by Tuckfield held by the Camellia Society of Victoria. The now mature layer of mid twentieth century planting, in particular the Camellia collection, along with the remnant Camellia shelter, the brick glasshouse and paving enriches and historical and associative significance of the place to Frederick Tuckfield as it clearly demonstrates the passion and interest of Tuckfield in collection, breeding and creating new Camellia varieties, and furthering the genus. (Criterion A and H)

(5) The Camellia collection itself, in its setting is of scientific significance as a rare and unusually large collection of the genus, particularly in a residential setting. In addition, the mature Bur Oak Quercus macrocarpa is of scientific (botanical) significance as a particularly outstanding specimen of its species. (Criterion F)

10.8 As pertains to paragraph 1 of the reasons for significance, the only intact tree on the site of an apparently sufficient age to be associated with the early occupation of the homestead is that tree which has been identified in the citation as a Bur Oak (Quercus macrocarpa), located between the restaurant and the residence. My colleague, Mr. Rogers, disputes this identification and believes that this tree is a Red Oak (Quercus rubra). While there are a number of other

large trees within the front gardens of the property, including two other large Oaks, these do not appear to have been planted prior to the 1940s. A Monterey Pine (Pinus radiata) at the north end of the property’s Manuka Road frontage appears of a similar era to the first Oak, but this tree has been repeatedly lopped and is in such a poor condition that Mr. Rogers recommends its removal.

10.9 The placement of the house well back from the road and on a rise above the surrounding landscape is not unusual to rural homesteads in Melbourne’s southeast. The choice of the citation authors to evaluate the place in the context of the Township of Berwick is somewhat misleading, as the property is a subdivided part of a former suburban lot outside of the original town plan area, and it would be more properly evaluated in comparison to other agricultural homesteads in the broader City of Casey. In the absence of such a comparison, it is my opinion that the intensive development of buildings and gardens associated with subsequent periods of residency on the site has in any case left little evidence of the original landscape character and structure of the self-sufficient farm.

10.10 As pertains to paragraph 2 of the reasons for significance, despite a substantial engagement with the place over several months, I have found little evidence to support a finding that there is a remaining John Stevens landscape design on the property, and no evidence that any such design survives with a high integrity.

10.11 re: John Stevens Native Garden – There is very little evidence of the native garden which has been asserted to have existed in the rear part of the property. As the authors of the updated citation themselves note in their physical description1 of the site, the integrity of the layout and planting design in this area has been lost. I note that, despite

1 “Updated Citation HO49 Clover Cottage and Gardens,” Pages 6-7.



being included in the citation’s physical description, the area asserted for the native garden is not addressed in the statement of significance and the proposed heritage overlay for the place. I would further suggest that many of the tree specimens which have been listed in the citation’s physical description as surviving evidence of the Stevens design are younger specimens which could not have been part of the Stevens-designed native garden. Mr. Chipperfield has advised that he planted the Eucalypts noted in the citation’s physical description. The Stevens native garden cannot be said to still be present on the site, and the rear part of the property would be correctly excluded from the heritage overlay applying to the place.

10.12 re: John Stevens Display Gardens –In my opinion the display gardens which may have been designed by John Stevens for Frederick Tuckfield do not survive with the high degree of integrity described by the citation authors. Although the display beds near the timber residence contain plant material of various ages, the majority of the plants in these beds appear to me to be younger than would be the case if these were plants which had been introduced in a design by John Stevens. The hard fabric construction of the beds, including both the various forms of stone edge wall and the gravel paths which run through the perimeter beds, were apparently carried out entirely by Mr. Chipperfield following his purchase of the property in the mid-1970s. Mr. Chipperfield takes credit for constructing all of this fabric, including the introduction of stone to the site.

10.13 While unfortunately little is apparently known or documented of the Stevens design for these gardens at 54-60 Manuka Road, much of the character of the current gardens appears to me to have been manufactured by Mr. Chipperfield commencing in the late 1970s. It is misleading to describe this as a Stevens design of high integrity, and it does not resemble the works of John Stevens with which I am familiar (see Appendix 2 for examples). John Stevens is noted for his contribution of sophisticated, well-constructed and thoroughly modernist landscape designs to the campuses at Monash University and at ANU in Canberra, and to a number of commercial sites, including the tower forecourts at the CRA Building (95 Collins Street, Melbourne) and ICI House (1 Nicholson Street, East Melbourne).

10.14 Some aspects of the form and character of the shaded perimeter display beds located directly south of the house, in front of the Camellia shelter, may predate Mr. Chipperfield’s reworking of the site. These beds include a number of older trees (including at least one, a Cypress, which would predate the Stevens design and was likely planted in the 1930s-1940s) and an understorey which includes Camellia plants. However, it is not clear that the Camellia specimens in this area are old enough to have been planted during Mr. Tuckfield’s ownership of the property, or that they represent rare or otherwise significant material. Mr. Chipperfield has indicated that he has introduced at least some of the Camellia plants to the site, and relocated or planted out others. Other plant material in these beds is younger and appears to have been introduced during Mr. Chipperfield’s redesign and continuing improvement of the property from the late 1970s onward.

10.15 As regards the aesthetic claims made in paragraph 3 of the reasons for significance, I am not aware of evidence that the landscape devices described in that paragraph are the work of John Stevens. Many of the intimate spaces, serpentine lines, gravel paths and large shrubberies appear foremost to be the work of Mr. Chipperfield in his redesign and formalisation of the property. Without access to original plans or to photographic documentation of the gardens prior to Mr. Chipperfield’s ownership, the ascription of these aesthetic characteristics to a John Stevens design appears to be a contemporary flight of fancy.

10.16 Further to this, I observe that the original approach to the house was indirect, possibly via the L- shaped drive that runs up the southern boundary and then turns north to reach the house. Today’s experience of the planted beds and the sequence of revealed spaces appears to have very little relationship to that original path of approach. Mr. Chipperfield indicates in his witness statement that he built the island beds and installed the plant material which is responsible for the present sequencing and experience of the gardens. While some existing trees, plants and bedding may have been incorporated into his works, it would appear to me that the layout and effect of such existing features was reworked by Mr. Chipperfield to embrace an approach from the west/northwest (where the visiting public entered the gardens via the restaurant).

10.17 Finally on this point, the aesthetic claims in paragraph 3 include the suggestion that the garden elements contain “contrasts between light and dark spaces, provide contrasts in texture and create filtered landscape views,” and that these are the work on John Stevens. I have noted that the bulk of the material in the main garden, and particularly the understorey and mid-storey material which would be prominent in textural and filtering effects, is too young to have been installed by John Stevens, and is in many cases the acknowledged introduction of Mr. Chipperfield. Further, the



effects created lack distinction. These effects are instead the common outcome of assembling a mass of varying plant material in one place and in contrast to areas of open lawn. As the Heritage Council notes in its guidelines for the evaluation of Criterion E, “Being ‘pretty’ or ‘attractive’ or popular is insufficient for the purposes of satisfying this criterion.”2

10.18 It is my opinion that the Stevens design for the front garden has not survived with the high degree of integrity which would support the claims of paragraphs 2 and 3 of the reasons for significance. It is not, on balance, a rare surviving example of a mid-century designed residential landscape, having been substantially altered, reworked and formalised by Mr. Chipperfield during his ownership to present the appearance of a much older, Victorian estate garden. And despite the presence of a number of very good mature trees (the best of which predate any work carried out by Mr. Stevens for Mr. Tuckfield), it compares poorly in form and material character to authentic Victorian period gardens which have been noted in the updated citation as comparators.3 For these reasons, I do not support a finding of aesthetic significance for the landscape elements of 54-60 Manuka Road.

10.19 As regards paragraph 4, I have expressed the opinion that the integrity of any surviving aspects of a John Stevens design for the property has been overstated. Nevertheless, the area of shaded display beds south of the house which contain Camellias likely has some partial integrity to the design and function of the garden as it existed during the Tuckfield era, and may be of some significance on this basis. However, the significance of the Camellia plants which are extant on the site has not to my knowledge been effectively evaluated by an expert in the cultivars. Without a proper audit of these plants, I am not comfortable with the conclusions that the plants themselves are significant, that they represent a “high percentage” of Camellia species, varieties and forms, or that they are directly associated with the collecting and breeding efforts of Mr. Tuckfield.

10.20 The remnants of the Camellia shelter itself appear to have been substantially altered and transformed under Mr. Chipperfield’s ownership. Mr. Chipperfield advises that when he took ownership of the property, this shelter had effectively been a production facility for Mr. Tuckfield’s efforts as a Camellia grower, and contained primarily small plants in pots and biscuit tins. Shelter for these shade-loving plants was evidently provided originally by a timber roof which has not survived, although some of the central support posts remain in the place. Very few plants within the shelter are reported by Mr. Chipperfield to have been planted in ground at the time he purchased the property. This is in keeping with what one would expect from a facility where new plant varieties were being actively generated and trialled.

10.21 In contrast with this description of a production environment, the landscape of today’s shelter ruins is wholly altered, with stone-edged, in-ground planting beds developed by Mr. Chipperfield, and a small number of overgrown Camellia plants increasingly crowded by weed trees and vines which have self-seeded or been introduced into the enclosure, including Sweet Pittosporum (Pittosporum undulatum), Cherry Plum (Prunus cerasifera nigra), and Hackberry (Celtis australis). The altered landscape of the shelter appears to be of very limited and declining value insofar as it might have demonstrated Mr. Tuckfield’s interest in and contributions to the growing and breeding of Camellia varieties.

10.22 As regards paragraph 5, on scientific significance, the above concerns apply. There does not appear to be clear evidence of the scientific significance of the Camellia plants present on the property. Both the Context citation and the report of Andrew Long & Associates make reference to the reported removal by Mr. Tuckfield’s widow of a number of rare or sentimentally valuable plants prior to the completion of the property’s sale. In his witness statement, Mr. Chipperfield indicates that on the date of settlement he had “noticed a lot of plantings including Camellias had been removed” (paragraph 22). There appears to be a considerable likelihood that, with the exception of a small number of very large, overmature specimens, many of the current Camellia plants on the property were subsequent additions by Mr. Chipperfield, and that some of these were purchased from retail sources.

10.23 I would note that in the event that further investigation does confirm that a part of the Camellia collection has scientific value, it should be considered whether the retention of this collection on the property is the best option for the conservation of that value. It would appear to me that any plants of genuine scientific interest would be better

2 Heritage Council of Victoria, “Victorian Heritage Register Criteria and Thresholds Guidelines,” June 2014. 3 Updated Citation, page 9.



conserved through their removal and regeneration at an off-site location where they would be accessible to expert growers and could be conserved through further propagation.

The Proposed Heritage Citation – Significant Elements

10.24 The Context citation lists the following landscape elements as significant:

The collection of Camellia species and varieties, many of which were bred, grown and or planted by Frederick Tuckfield c. 1955-1973.

The garden design, planting, layout and materials, designed by John Stevens c.1955, incorporating earlier plantings and residential garden immediate to the dwelling.

The specimen of Quercus macrocarpa Bur Oak at the rear of the modern restaurant building.

The boundary plantings of Cypress and Pine

10.25 As discussed above, it is my opinion that surviving evidence of the John Stevens garden design is limited in spatial extent and of low integrity. The bulk of the present gardens are best described as a c. 1980s homage to a Victorian-era pleasure garden, incorporating some earlier plantings that may have been associated with (i) a design by John Stevens c. 1955 and (ii) an older residential garden in the area immediate to the dwelling, as well as other plantings which may have occurred subsequently to Mr. Stevens work at the property. In this regard, it is important to consider whether the remaining elements of the Tuckfield-era are sufficient to say that there is a significant design by the landscape architect John Stevens extant on the site today.

10.26 In my opinion, whilst the Stevens design represented a stage in the history of the site, the present condition of the gardens as a whole appears to be primarily reflective of the tastes, technical effort and investment of Mr. Chipperfield. The extant garden cannot be said today to be a John Stevens-designed garden, and has no value in supporting a greater understanding or appreciation of Stevens’ work. Indeed, a visitor attending Clover Cottage with an interest in studying the work of John Stevens is in great danger of being deeply misled, a risk that appears lost on the authors of the proposed citation, who appear themselves to have mistaken elements which are the later constructions of Mr. Chipperfield.

10.27 The landscape of the site may retain some historical interest, despite its integrity and value having been substantially overstated. The following elements can be confirmed to have some degree of historical significance:

Three Oak trees (Quercus macrocarpa or similar) which are believed to have formed an informal outer boundary of previous residential gardens on the property; the oldest tree is approximately 100 years old and the others most likely date to the 1940s.

A group of display beds located south of the house, which incorporate plant material of various periods, including material which may pertain to a John Stevens c. 1955 landscape design for the property. Shaded portions of these beds include Camellias which are a reminder of Frederick Tuckfield’s use of the site in the breeding and development of new Camellia varieties, although the age, provenance and scientific importance of these plants has not been determined. Sunnier portions of these beds include a rose garden which as a feature is believed to date to at least the Tuckfield era, as well as a range of small-to-large trees. These include several trees which may have been selected by Stevens (Brachychiton bicolor, Gordonia axillaris, a Juniperus virginiana which is in decline and requires removal), and a tree (the large Cypress near to the house) which would predate any Stevens design. These beds also include a variety of material installed by the subsequent owner John Chipperfield and which is not significant. All of these beds and the interwoven paths have been substantially modified by Mr. Chipperfield through the addition of stone edging, gravel surfaces and new plants, and Mr. Chipperfield has indicated that some of these beds were entirely his introduction. Again, this modern fabric is not significant.



The foundation planting beds on the south and west faces of the cottage may be considered contributory to the appreciation of the house and reflective of a longer history of domestic gardening associated with the residence. The majority of the plants in these beds appear to be relatively recent in origin.

A partial boundary planting of Monterey Cypress (Hesperocyparis macrocarpa) located northwest of the

cottage, which provides a sense of enclosure and a degree of shelter to the house and the central display beds described above.

10.28 In addition, the following element may have significance, if convincingly demonstrated by the report of an expert:

A collection of Camellia plants which are located in the former footprint of a simple timber shelter nursery (now ruins), as well as those located in the shaded display beds west of the shelter which are noted above.

10.29 The rarity and provenance of the Camellia plants and their importance to the known breeding activities of Frederick Tuckfield is not known and should be established before their inclusion in the heritage overlay. It is my opinion that if any Camellia plants are ultimately identified as scientifically significant, their conservation would be more appropriately achieved off-site.

10.30 In my view, the remainder of the front gardens, although incorporating some older trees, are primarily defined and characterised by the work of John Chipperfield subsequent to his purchase of the property in 1974. This area does not retain a strong relationship to the house and the core group of display beds south of the house. Older trees in this area have either been wholly separated from the core garden by the large restaurant building, or have been subsumed into the later plantings and other additions of Mr. Chipperfield.

10.31 Separated trees include the four Cedars (Cedrus atlantica ‘Glauca’) and the Elm (Ulmus minor) which may date to the 1940s-1950s but which have been subsequently incorporated into the front stone terrace of the restaurant. Also separated is the Cypress boundary planting along Manuka Road, which is located 100 metres west of the core area of display beds identified above and is now arguably more significant to the restaurant parking lot than to any garden features which may be contemporary to it. Other older trees in the front gardens have been subsumed into more recent plantings, limiting their relationship to the core area of historical significance around the house and the gardens which are immediate to it. These trees do not appear to have historical significance, and their conservation would be appropriately managed through the application of the Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO4).

10.32 Given this, it would be more appropriate to limit the area of the proposed heritage overlay to those limited landscape features of genuine historical significance. I note that this is the strategy which appears to have been adopted in the proposed amendment with respect to the overlay for the nearby Minard villa (HO50), as described in the Council Officer’s Report’s “Consideration of Submissions” respecting Amendment C231 (Item 6.5, Page 15).

The Proposed Heritage Overlay

10.33 The current heritage overlay defines HO49 tightly to the original timber cottage. Given that previous heritage citations have ascribed significance to landscape elements on the property, and notwithstanding my mixed evaluation here of the appropriateness of the current heritage evaluation, it is a strange situation that for more than a decade the official mapped overlay has been allowed to diverge so prominently from the ascribed area of significance.

10.34 The proposed overlay now expands the bounds of HO49 to cover most but not all of the property of 54-60 Manuka Road. Of note, is that it appears to exclude an area within the rear part of the property.

10.35 It is unclear how this rear boundary was generated, but it seems to have been mapped to include the Golden Elm tree which the citation authors appear to imply is associated with the John Stevens design. The citation includes the following description: “A particularly fine example of Ulmus glabra 'Lutea' Golden Elm is located on the area of lawn between the residential garden and the native gardens, originally designed to create a transition through counterpoint with the grey-green native foliage.” This Elm, while certainly a fine specimen, appears too young to have been planted



with any John Stevens garden c. 1955, and indeed Mr. Chipperfield states that he planted this tree, as well as a number of the native trees which are now located beyond it. It is not of heritage significance, and should not influence the location of the proposed overlay.

10.36 The formal, rock-lined garden centred on a fountain which is located directly behind the Camellia shelter ruins also is understood to be the work of Mr. Chipperfield. The rockwork is consistent with his development of the gardens elsewhere on the property, and the beds contain plant material which is too young to be associated with any garden developed by John Stevens. When I visited the site with Mr. Chipperfield, he recalled that when he purchased the property this area contained a small concrete trough encircled by 4 foot wide lavender hedges, and that he subsequently replaced this feature with the imported fountain, bluestone edging, and plant material which are now in evidence, including the Cherry tree which he recalls purchasing at a nursery in Warranwood. In his witness statement, Mr. Chipperfield states that this work was carried out after 1985. None of the original fabric of a John Stevens-designed garden is now evident in this area.

10.37 It is apparent that no substantial remains of the John Stevens-designed gardens of Frederick Tuckfield exist in the area beyond the rear boundary of the Camellia shelter. In this circumstance, and given that the amendment has proposed a heritage overlay smaller than the property boundaries, it appears appropriate that this overlay should be reduced in extent in this area. The integrity of the gardens located inside the shelter is also arguable, but if the significance of the remaining Camellia plants within the shelter were to be adequately established, the overlay should still extend no further east than the rear boundary of the Camellia shelter ruins, or a reasonable setback beyond. The present extension of the proposed overlay approx. 40 metres beyond the shelter, despite an absence of historic features, is, in my opinion, excessive.

10.38 With respect to the front portion of the site, it is my opinion that the extent of the proposed overlay is larger than what is necessary to conserve remaining landscape features associated with the property’s historical significance. The features which are of significance are located within an area extending to approximately 80m in front (west) of the house (the furthest of the Oak trees), and perhaps within the footprint of the former Camellia shelter (which extends to approximately 50m east of the house). Other older trees in the front part of the property have been effectively separated from a legible connection to the house and those core garden beds by the development of the restaurant and by Mr. Chipperfield’s development of various formal garden features and other introductions.

Conclusion

10.39 While landscape features of some historical significance remain on the property of 54-60 Manuka Road, Berwick, the significance of these features has been overstated in both integrity and extent. Today, the gardens at Clover Cottage are the product of extensive formalisation, modification and new constructions carried out by the most recent previous owner, John Chipperfield, after his purchase of the property following the death of Frederick Tuckfield. While there remains plant material from the Tuckfield era, including trees which may possibly have been installed to a reputed design by John Stevens, the integrity of any such features is considerably reduced and cannot be said to be legible or conservable as a John Stevens landscape design.

10.40 When compared to the present condition of the property as a whole, an area of display beds located south of the house appears to be somewhat more reflective of the previous Tuckfield-era gardens and can be said to have some historical significance from this association. This core garden area, bounded to the west by the arc of the three mature oak trees, should be included in the heritage overlay, although for clarity the heritage citation should be modified to provide an accurate appraisal of the limits of this significance and the extent of the alterations that occurred during Mr. Chipperfield’s ownership.

10.41 There are no landscape elements of heritage significance in the rear part of the property lying beyond the eastern boundary of the former Camellia shelter. The former Camellia shelter has been extensively re-landscaped, and has no landscape significance outside of any specific significance which may be proven to apply to the Camellia plants it contains.

10.42 To my knowledge, the significance of the existing collection of Camellia plants has yet to be adequately assessed by an expert in the cultivars. However it is clear that plantings within the former Camellia shelter were heavily modified by Mr. Chipperfield and no longer reflect the shelter’s condition during Mr. Tuckfield’s life, and that the property



includes Camellias of a range of sizes and ages, some of which Mr. Chipperfield has stated were added during his ownership from retail nursery sources.

10.43 Expert assessment is needed to conclusively evaluate the significance of the Camellia collection and to determine the most appropriate strategy for its conservation. If the plants were to be found to hold scientific significance, I would suggest that their removal to a dedicated off-site location for further propagation may be desirable as a public priority over their retention on the current property, where they are likely to remain inaccessible to experts and may not receive the maintenance and propagative efforts that are required to conserve the values that have been ascribed to them.

10.44 To the west of the core garden area described above, the integrity of the garden design which has been ascribed heritage significance appears to me to be too low to support this designation. The conservation of individual large trees and the boundary planting of Cypress on Manuka Road should be managed through application of the existing Casey Significant Landscape Overlay (SLO4).

11 PROVISIONAL OPINIONS.

11.1 None.

12 INACCURACIES AND ADDITIONAL MATTERS.

12.1 To my knowledge, there are no inaccuracies in this report or matters related to landscape assessment and design which fall outside my expertise.

12.2 I have made all the enquiries that I believe are desirable and appropriate and no matters of significance, which I regard as relevant, have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

John Patrick John Patrick Landscape Architects Pty Ltd

54-60 Manuka Road, Berwick Evidence to Panel Hearing for Casey Planning Scheme Amendment C231 – Appendix 1

Appendix 1

Indicative Plan, 54-60 Manuka Road, Berwick – Landscape

N.T.S.


JOHN PATRICK LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS PTY LTD | OFFICE REF: 17-0751

Appendix 2:

Reference Images, John Stevens-designed Commercial Forecourts



95 Collins Street, CRA Building (Conzinc Riotinto of Australia), forecourt design by John Stevens.

Photograph by Wolfgang Sievers, 1962.



Plan for CRA Building Forecourt by John Stevens.

Reproduced in Andrew Saniga, Making Landscape Architecture in Australia, UNSW Press 2012.



ICI House, 1 Nicholson Street, forecourt design by John Stevens.

Photograph by Wolfgang Sievers, 1959.

planning panels victoria hearing on casey planning scheme ... · 1980 becoming full-time in 1988....

Documents